News0 min ago
There Are Some Savages Out There.......
10 Answers
https:/
..bet this guy has walked into a few doors in the time he's been on remand.
..bet this guy has walked into a few doors in the time he's been on remand.
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
TTT - // all very well AH and I am grateful for your input on this but mocking dying officers for the fact that they dared to pull him over puts this guy in a psychotic group that you would be happy to proceed as I have had he infringed on areas that you deem summarilably judgeable. // If I am reading your post correctly, you are assuming that in view of the henous nature...
19:34 Wed 28th Apr 2021
it's a nasty world. That's what happens when anyone can film anything
https:/
https:/
First of all TTT - and I know were are opposite ends on this argument - I blieve that someone who is innocent until proven guilty should not be receiving summary vigilante justice in the form of violence, while being held on remand and awaiting trial.
Secondly, I am not part of the 'phone' generation, so the reflex action to start filming something in front of me is something I simply don't possess, but it clearly has dreadful consequences on occasions, as this incident proves.
But as the judge confirmed, this individual does suffer from mental health issues which probably contributed towards his behaviour on that day - although that may merely have increased his tendency to be a deeply unpleasant individual anyway, none of us can know that.
Tragedies occur on a daily basis, but I find the urge among people to film them and then place clips on social media to be a deeply disturbing evolution in our culture.
It speaks of complete lack of proper respect and the absence of basic human compassion, that the first reaction of some people is to think about their media profile, and reach for a phone to film something that anyone with any standard moral sense is going to find deeply distressing.
I am delighted not to begin to understand why people would want to do that, but I see it as a backward step in the progression of our culture, and in the moral base of its human component.
Secondly, I am not part of the 'phone' generation, so the reflex action to start filming something in front of me is something I simply don't possess, but it clearly has dreadful consequences on occasions, as this incident proves.
But as the judge confirmed, this individual does suffer from mental health issues which probably contributed towards his behaviour on that day - although that may merely have increased his tendency to be a deeply unpleasant individual anyway, none of us can know that.
Tragedies occur on a daily basis, but I find the urge among people to film them and then place clips on social media to be a deeply disturbing evolution in our culture.
It speaks of complete lack of proper respect and the absence of basic human compassion, that the first reaction of some people is to think about their media profile, and reach for a phone to film something that anyone with any standard moral sense is going to find deeply distressing.
I am delighted not to begin to understand why people would want to do that, but I see it as a backward step in the progression of our culture, and in the moral base of its human component.
TTT - // all very well AH and I am grateful for your input on this but mocking dying officers for the fact that they dared to pull him over puts this guy in a psychotic group that you would be happy to proceed as I have had he infringed on areas that you deem summarilably judgeable. //
If I am reading your post correctly, you are assuming that in view of the henous nature of his offences, that I would be keen to see the sumary justice of which you speak meted out to him as retribution.
The truth is, I would not, because to agree with that position would be to let my emptions influence my view of the reaction of others before trial and conviction, and I try really hard not to do that.
We have argued this times without number, and I have always said that I entirely understand your emotional reaction, and the satisfaction gained from assuming that some sumary punishment was received.
But I cannot condone it, because if we decide that such actions are acceptable, we step onto the slippery slope where vigilanteism is acceptable, and prison 'justice' is the way to deal with situations like this.
I am aware that stating such a position renders me in danger of believing that I am morally superior in my outlook, but as I have also stated, that is absolutely not the case.
Trying to maintain an attitude of calm impartiality, which is how the law has to work, when faced with situations like this would make my head hurt severely if I dwelt on it for too long - so I don't.
I maintain that the legal system has to follow due process, and interim acts of retribution are not acceptable, and are not to be tolerated.
That's not because I don't understand the utterly understanable indignation that fuels and drives that notion, I absolutely do, I wouldn't be human if I didn't.
But a system of law and order cannot function if it operates on a sliding scale of moral indignation, with situations like this attracting an acceptable level of pre-trial (and pre-conviction which in turn enshrines the concept of innocence until guilt is proven) violence and retribution.
That is not how a legal system worth having operates - it never can, and hopefully it did not do so here - understandable emotional desires for it notwithstanding.
If I am reading your post correctly, you are assuming that in view of the henous nature of his offences, that I would be keen to see the sumary justice of which you speak meted out to him as retribution.
The truth is, I would not, because to agree with that position would be to let my emptions influence my view of the reaction of others before trial and conviction, and I try really hard not to do that.
We have argued this times without number, and I have always said that I entirely understand your emotional reaction, and the satisfaction gained from assuming that some sumary punishment was received.
But I cannot condone it, because if we decide that such actions are acceptable, we step onto the slippery slope where vigilanteism is acceptable, and prison 'justice' is the way to deal with situations like this.
I am aware that stating such a position renders me in danger of believing that I am morally superior in my outlook, but as I have also stated, that is absolutely not the case.
Trying to maintain an attitude of calm impartiality, which is how the law has to work, when faced with situations like this would make my head hurt severely if I dwelt on it for too long - so I don't.
I maintain that the legal system has to follow due process, and interim acts of retribution are not acceptable, and are not to be tolerated.
That's not because I don't understand the utterly understanable indignation that fuels and drives that notion, I absolutely do, I wouldn't be human if I didn't.
But a system of law and order cannot function if it operates on a sliding scale of moral indignation, with situations like this attracting an acceptable level of pre-trial (and pre-conviction which in turn enshrines the concept of innocence until guilt is proven) violence and retribution.
That is not how a legal system worth having operates - it never can, and hopefully it did not do so here - understandable emotional desires for it notwithstanding.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Home & Garden4 mins ago
Reeves Is Now After Your Pension Funds
News4 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises...
News10 mins ago
